Originally Posted by Neeek

There are much more effective ways of influencing behavior in a positive manner that don't set a precedence of limiting choice. It makes much more sense to "help" people make decisions that are good for themselves/everyone else, without resorting to a ridiculous, ineffective mandate.

easy there. you are gonna get the OT rebubs all kind of fired up if you start talking about how the government should not be limiting choice.

Originally Posted by Gotskillz

I personally use common sense to draw the line.

Common sense is cool, but if I wrote a law that said "The government can regulate things that it makes sense to regulate, and cannot regulate things that don't make sense," the courts would throw it out for being absurdly vague. You said you could draw a line, so draw it.

Originally Posted by Gotskillz

It is completely obvious to anyone that regulating the size of a soda or something similar will do absolutely fuck all to combat obesity in any way.

This is only obvious to anyone who doesn't know anything about cognitive science.

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I swear you are some author's idea of a caricature of a liberal that he uses to show the absurdity of the philosophy. Well played all these years maintaining character.

Once I had this absurd idea to put together a cartoon called Conservative Coyote, where the coyote would get into everyday jams, and constantly spout right wing cliches as he rolled up his sleeves and worked his way out of trouble. Then I was gonna get time on Public Access TV at 2am, and run them, praying that a person would tell a person that would tell a person who knows someone at FOX News, and they'd pay me a fortune to buy them up and use as propoganda. Quickly I realized the truth; they would be seen by me, 2 or 3 of my friends, Bernhard Goetz and his squirrel, and 2 or 3 random night stalkers on smoke break. At best, maybe Lady Gaga would catch it while stoned one night and name check CC on some B Side, quickly to be forgotten.

Originally Posted by kellykip

Once I had this absurd idea to put together a cartoon called Conservative Coyote, where the coyote would get into everyday jams, and constantly spout right wing cliches as he rolled up his sleeves and worked his way out of trouble. Then I was gonna get time on Public Access TV at 2am, and run them, praying that a person would tell a person that would tell a person who knows someone at FOX News, and they'd pay me a fortune to buy them up and use as propoganda. Quickly I realized the truth; they would be seen by me, 2 or 3 of my friends, Bernhard Goetz and his squirrel, and 2 or 3 random night stalkers on smoke break. At best, maybe Lady Gaga would catch it while stoned one night and name check CC on some B Side, quickly to be forgotten.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I'm not sure how this anecdote is responsive to my post you quoted.

it's to say the people drawing the line very often don't know where to put it, and we'd all be better served if they kept their markers in their pockets more often. it's to say those lines end up costing real people money, freedom, and the ability to make the right choices on their own accord.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

This is only obvious to anyone who doesn't know anything about cognitive science.

Cognitive science tells me, that when someone tries to order a large soda, and the clerk says "sorry we can't sell that size anymore", that most people would not say "ok i will drink less soda from now and become less fat" but they will say fuck you and spite drink 3 times as much as normal and become even fatter, and then have big fat protest and drown all of the politicians in a pool of soda, and start a revolution where they change watertaps in every home to sodataps.

^ about as reasonable as thinking this policy truthfully combats obesity.

Originally Posted by Hank H1LL

it's to say the people drawing the line very often don't know where to put it, and we'd all be better served if they kept their markers in their pockets more often. it's to say those lines end up costing real people money, freedom, and the ability to make the right choices on their own accord.

Originally Posted by Gotskillz

Cognitive science tells me, that when someone tries to order a large soda, and the clerk says "sorry we can't sell that size anymore", that most people would not say "ok i will drink less soda from now and become less fat" but they will say fuck you and spite drink 3 times as much as normal and become even fatter, and then have big fat protest and drown all of the politicians in a pool of soda, and start a revolution where they change watertaps in every home to sodataps.

^ about as reasonable as thinking this policy truthfully combats obesity.

edit: didn't read the last line of your post, icwudt. Cute, but it's very plain that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Common sense is cool, but if I wrote a law that said "The government can regulate things that it makes sense to regulate, and cannot regulate things that don't make sense," the courts would throw it out for being absurdly vague. You said you could draw a line, so draw it.

Isn't that basically exactly what the system is? We vote people into power, who we think will regulate things that make sense to us. When they don't and they abuse that power for retarded agendas, and regulate things like the size of a soda cup, we rightfully express outrage on offtopic poker forums.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

edit: didn't read the last line of your post, icwudt. Cute, but it's very plain that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ya thats right Supremo, you are right and everybody else is wrong. You are just so much smarter then everyone else that we can't see the truth that regulating the fuck out of everything is a good idea and works.

You didn't answer my question, do you support the ban of dozen size doughnut boxes and large bags of doritos?

Originally Posted by rayspizza

HFCS isn't unnatural, per se (thanks LS), it's just sucrose enzymatically broken down and skewed towards fructose because it's sweeter. That said, the simpler nature of fructose makes it more readily available; thereby requiring less energy to use. Couple that with it being used almost exclusively in artificial drinks and its potential as a glycerol precursor and it's hard to find a lot of good things to say about it.

But really Sucrose is about as natural as it gets for sweet simple sugars and it's only one step away from fructose. Also it is less sweet, so manufacturers tend to use more of it, which is bad. So beforewarned, "natural" could mean sucrose, which isn't a whole lot better than HFCS. However, with "natural" juices (i.e. made directly from fruit and are unpurified, unsweetend, etc...) you get a lot more longer chain sugars, which don't provide any real sweetness, but add body and texture. So even though your still getting " lots and lots" of sucrose in these drinks you're also getting vitamins and dietary fiber which go a long to fuel body and increase satiety, so theoretically you will drink less. So yeah, more natural is definitely better.

Pretty much all of this, natural sugars are still sugars and will have the same effects on your body (there is actually a very small difference between natural sugars and HFCS). A Glass of orange juice is fine for you, it will contain some vitamins and other nutrients that soda obviously doesn't have but it is definitely a myth that it is a healthy alternatives to drinking soda or other sugary beverages.

Waco, that statement was just directed at the ridiculousness of the law. 16 oz of Juice is ~225 Calories and ~50 Carbs 16 oz of Soda is 190 Calories and ~50 Carbs, from a macro standpoint they are basically the same and will have the exact same effect on your body from a purely weight gain/loss standpoint.

Alcohol should probably only be sold in single shots too... i know sometimes when I have a fifth i drink the whole thing in one sitting, even though i know its bad for me. Really hope the government starts helping me help myself.

Originally Posted by playwithfire05

Alcohol should probably only be sold in single shots too... i know sometimes when I have a fifth i drink the whole thing in one sitting, even though i know its bad for me. Really hope the government starts helping me help myself.

but then I'd have to buy 2... sometimes 3 or 4... to pour into my 10oz soda

Originally Posted by playwithfire05

Alcohol should probably only be sold in single shots too... i know sometimes when I have a fifth i drink the whole thing in one sitting, even though i know its bad for me. Really hope the government starts helping me help myself.

Ya because cognitive science tells us the container size is what tells u how much to drink. I know I hate when someone buys me a 60oz bottle of alcohol for christmas because I am spending that night in the hospital or the drunk tank/jail. Once my buddy left a full keg of beer at my house, and I got alcohol poisoning. At sunday dinners, my mom serves us our water is shot glasses, and nobody gets more thirsty, because its the container size that chooses how thirsty we are, not biology.

I am going to start a restaurant chain that serves one bite of a burger, 1 french fry, and soda out of a bottlecap. Ill charge the same as everyone else, and get rich because my portion suggestions will make them think that is all they need. Cognitive science tells us this!!

Originally Posted by Admiral

Waco, that statement was just directed at the ridiculousness of the law. 16 oz of Juice is ~225 Calories and ~50 Carbs 16 oz of Soda is 190 Calories and ~50 Carbs, from a macro standpoint they are basically the same and will have the exact same effect on your body from a purely weight gain/loss standpoint.

not a fan of the ban (obvvv), but it targeted soda instead of juice for legit reasons, IMO. soda straight up kills you. I get the weight loss thing, but there is much more in play when dealing with HFCS and other garbage they put in soda

Originally Posted by coolhandkev

Just find it funny that they expect this to help with obesity issues for some reason when there are plenty of higher calorie substitutes that will again all things equal cause more obesity

right, but fairly sure they aren't just going after obesity here. also trying to prevent cancer and other health risks associated with soda.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I'm all ears. I'd dispute the idea that this policy is going to be "ineffective" though...it might not be (probably isn't?) the most effective thing a government has ever done, but it will clearly have some effect.

I'm making this up as I go, but my understanding of human beings and their motivations suggest all of the following would be more effective policies:

Making a 12 oz. drink the standard size that comes with meals. When someone says "I'll have a coke," they get a 12oz. soda instead of a trough.
Standardizing small/medium/larges. Smalls are now always 8oz, mediums 12oz., and larges 16oz. You can still get a 48oz. monstrosity, but you now have to order an "enjoy your skin tags you morbidly obese pigfuck" sized drink (I guess you could just call it a "family-sized" or something if u didn't want to offend.

By changing he standard sizes back to actual servings, people will be much more likely to order a serving of fluid instead of the caloric equivalent of 2 meals. Lots of people would still order 48oz. drinks (I love me an extra large taco bell baja blast), but its no longer the default, and no longer within the norm. This type of idea has been proven to have strong influence on behavior.

Basically its the same idea as "opt-in" vs. "opt-out" HIV screening. Defining the norm (a single standardized serving) in a healthier way, and having to make a conscious choice to go against that is a much more effective method of influencing behavior than ridiculous mandates.

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

not a fan of the ban (obvvv), but it targeted soda instead of juice for legit reasons, IMO. soda straight up kills you. I get the weight loss thing, but there is much more in play when dealing with HFCS and other garbage they put in soda.

Like what? I'm not saying you are wrong, just not aware of any strong evidence to suggest this is true.

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

HFCS and other ingredients is the real problem, not sugary drinks in general. some of them are just fine, given proper portion control.

The jury is actually still out on the HFCS being really really bad. It first came out and everyone was claiming it is a healthy alternative to sugar, that's obviously false. Then without a whole lot of good scientific evidence everyone was shouting that it is poison and the only reason anyone is producing it is because it is so cheap.

From a purely chemical structure standpoint it is very close to normal sugar, and I really think when all is said and done the debate will settle back in the middle as being a much cheaper alternative to sugar that should be consumed in manageable portions just like anything else.

Daily Fantasy Sports

US-based P5ers

PocketFives does not recommend playing online poker on sites offering rake-based games in the
United States, except on state-licensed sites in New Jersey,
Nevada,
and Delaware.

We understand your frustration with the current situation, and that frustration is shared by many of us in the poker community. We hope to have positive news soon regarding online poker regulation in the remaining U.S. states.